"We have been awaiting this decision for some time and welcome it not only as a tremendous victory, but as a common sense recognition that it is not for the federal courts to substitute their judgment about whether same-sex 'marriage' is a good idea or not, but to leave it to the people to make the decision about this fundamental institution." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised a ruling from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding marriage amendments in four states that define marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman. The ruling is a major victory for supporters of traditional marriage, and NOM called on the US Supreme Court to take the case when it is appealed and follow the direction of the 6th Circuit.

"We have been awaiting this decision for some time and welcome it not only as a tremendous victory, but as a common sense recognition that it is not for the federal courts to substitute their judgment about whether same-sex 'marriage' is a good idea or not, but to leave it to the people to make the decision about this fundamental institution," said Brian Brown, president of NOM.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Jeffrey Sutton, argues forcefully that courts should leave a decision about changing "such a fundamental social institution" as marriage to the American people and the democratic process. They said, "Process and structure matter greatly in American government. Indeed, they may be the most reliable, liberty assuring guarantees of our system of government, requiring us to take seriously the route the United States Constitution contemplates for making such a fundamental change to such a fundamental social institution." The ruling leaves intact marriage amendments in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

NOM urged the US Supreme Court to take this case at the earliest opportunity. "The justices of the Supreme Court were derelict in their duty when they refused to review the marriage cases previously before them," Brown said. "They now have no excuse. We call on the Supreme Court to stand for the proposition that men and women of good will across this land have the right under their constitution to preserve marriage in the law as it has always existed in reality, the union of one man and one woman."

While praising the outcome of the case, Brown sharply disagreed with sentiments in the opinion suggesting that momentum for same-sex marriage shows no sign of slowing.

"The Sixth Circuit was certainly correct to frame the question before them as 'who decides?' and we wholeheartedly agree that the American people should decide this issue," Brown said. "But the majority is wrong to suggest that voters have changed their minds. In fact, in the vast majority of states that now have redefined marriage, it's been judges and not voters who have done this. The movement to redefine marriage does not benefit from having momentum, it benefits from the exercise of raw political power by federal and state judges and politicians bent of imposing their politically-correct view of the world on the American people."

NOM pointed to several recent developments to show that support for same-sex marriage is waning.

"Just look at what's happened in just the last few days," Brown said. "In Ohio, advocates of gay 'marriage' have pulled a ballot petition because of the fear they will lose. In North Carolina, a poll last week showed that support for traditional marriage stood at 72%, an eleven point increase over the 61% of voters who passed their marriage amendment. Marriage just played a central factor in the defeat of both US Senators Kay Hagan (NC) and Mark Pryor (AR), not to mention numerous other candidates, including several Republicans, who favor redefining marriage. And an NBC election-day survey found that support for redefining marriage had plateaued while opposition had increased by two points. The reality is that same-sex 'marriage' is entirely a creation of the elite in boardrooms and courtrooms and not something that is supported by the American people."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

"This important decision has largely been ignored in the media because it undercuts the narrative that same-sex marriage is inevitable. But it isn't." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today praised a state judge in Tennessee who ruled last week that the Tennessee state constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman does not violate the federal constitution. He is the first judge to uphold the constitutionality of a state marriage amendment since the US Supreme Court issued their 2013 opinion striking down a section of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

"It is refreshing to find a judge who is willing to apply the federal constitution as it is and not reinterpret the constitution so as to redefine marriage," said Brian S. Brown, NOM's president. "Judge Russell Simmons is exactly correct when he says that there is nothing about the US Supreme Court's Windsor decision that would invalidate the right of Tennessee voters to define marriage as one man and one woman or require the state to recognize a same-sex ceremony performed in another state."

The Tennessee case involved two gay men who 'married' in Iowa four years ago and now wish to force Tennessee to grant them a divorce. But Judge Simmons wrote in his ruling, "neither the Federal Government nor another state should be allowed to dictate to Tennessee what has traditionally been a state's responsibility."

A number of federal judges in recent months have misinterpreted the US Supreme Court's ruling in the Windsor case, which held that a section of DOMA was unconstitutional because it interfered with the right of New York to redefine marriage. The Court's majority held that regulating marriage has historically been a responsibility of the states and the federal government cannot substitute its judgment for that of the states.

"This important decision has largely been ignored in the media because it undercuts the narrative that same-sex marriage is inevitable. But it isn't," said Brown. "NOM is confident that when this issue reaches the US Supreme Court, likely within a few months, that the constitutionality of marriage amendments and statutes defining marriage as one man and one woman will be upheld."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Yesterday we told you about two competing perspectives on marriage – one focused on the desires of adults, the other on the needs and rights of children. In the end we talked about marriage as the social fabric that holds our culture together.

Well today, here’s another set of competing perspectives: Is marriage a permanent commitment or simply a commodity to be tried out on a leasing basis, like a car or an apartment? From the deep south of all places comes the idea of the ‘marriage lease’, as Fox Memphis reports:

What if marriage was like leasing a car?

After a couple years, you could renew the relationship or just walk away, with no fuss. A Florida lawyer says now might be the time to consider short-term marriages.

Family Action Council of Tennessee President David Fowler explains why those pushing to redefine marriage need to meet their burden of proof. And if they can't, the “marriage equality” argument has no foundation to stand on.

The issue is not whether homosexual conduct is good or bad. It is not whether those who engage in homosexual relations can be productive members of society. And it is not about benefits. That is what same-sex marriage advocates want people to think. But those are not the issue.

The issue is whether our society should continue to embrace natural marriage – the union of a man and woman — or embrace other forms of relationships as marriages.

However, the burden of proving that this change will improve our common good is on same-sex marriage advocates, not on those who support the long-standing meaning and value of natural marriage.

Those who support change just can’t be the “party of no” because they are against natural marriage. They need to tell Tennesseans what they are for so that Tennesseans can see how it “stacks up” in comparison to natural marriage.

And if same-sex marriage advocates want equality, then the burden is on them to prove that a same-sex union is essentially the same as a heterosexual union in all regards. Otherwise, everyone knows that there is nothing “unequal” or “unfair” about treating two different things two different ways.

If they can’t meet their burden of proof, then the whole “marriage equality” argument falls to the ground.